CAR_Public/060802.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, August 2, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 152

                            Headlines

ACADEMY OF IVY RIDGE: Faces $100M Lawsuit Over Alleged False Ad
AK STEEL: Retirees Pleased With Unions' Affiliation With IAMAW
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Claims in Suits Over Information Leaks Nixed
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Dismissed From Travel Agents' Antitrust Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Faces Flight Attendant Suit Over CBA

AMERICAN AIRLINES: N.Y. Court Nixes Certain Claims in "Cooper"
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Plaintiffs to Appeal Nixing of "Harrington"
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Summary Ruling in Calif. Suit Under Appeal
BALLARAT UNIVERSITY: Plaintiffs Allowed to Opt Out of Labor Suit
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Supreme Court Vacates Order in "Disher" Suit

COLORADO: No Violation in Parolees Voting Rights, Court Says
DESNOES AND GEDDES: Pension Members Lose Bid to Wind up Plan
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of "Beeman"
FIDELITY FEDERAL: Reaches $50M Settlement in Fla. DPPA Lawsuit
HARRAH'S CHEROKEE: Employee Files Race Discrimination Lawsuit

ILLINOIS: Plaintiffs in U46 Dist. Suit Refute Dismissal of Case
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Continues to Face Calif. Labor Lawsuit
LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Party in Welding Rod Products Liability Suit
MISSOURI: Aug. Hearing Set in Franklin County Property Tax Suit
PIZZA HUT: Calif. FLSA Suit Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval

PRAXAIR INC: Faces Claims in Welding Rod Products Liability Suit
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Circuit Court Affirms Okla. Stock Suit Dismissal
SPRINT NEXTEL: Settles Age Discrimination Suit in Ga. for $5.5M
SPRINT NEXTEL: Ga. Settlement Won't Affect Kans. Age Bias Suit
SUPA-BOUNCE PTY: Settlement Talks Ongoing in Bouncy Castle Suit

TACO BELL: Discovery Continues in Calif. ADA Violations Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Pa. Residents Sue HUD Over Housing Foreclosure


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

FOXHOLLOW TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz & Nobel Announces Filing of Suit
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Faruqi & Faruqi Announces Stock Suit Filing
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Federman & Sherwood Announces Filing of Suit
RAMBUS INC: Klafter & Olsen Files Securities Suit in N.D. Calif.


                            *********


ACADEMY OF IVY RIDGE: Faces $100M Lawsuit Over Alleged False Ad
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Hancock & Estabrook, LLP initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
New York against Academy of Ivy Ridge, claiming that AIR
fraudulently advertised itself as a licensed and accredited
private boarding school authorized by the state to issue
diplomas.

The suit was filed on behalf of about 25 parents on July 26,
2006.  It alleges that AIR falsely and fraudulently certified to
educational lending institutions that they were a licensed and
accredited private boarding high school, authorized by the state
of New York to issue diplomas.

The false assertion, according to the 37-page complaint, was
made so parents could qualify for loans to pay monthly tuition
ranging from $2,800 to $4,000.

The suit alleges that AIR never applied for certification that
was required from the New York Board of Regents prior to
advertising that their students would be eligible to receive
high school diplomas, which were not recognized by any state or
governmental entity.  It also alleges that none of the credits
earned from AIR were valid educational credits recognized by the
state of New York.

In addition, plaintiffs alleged that they were misrepresented
and led to believe AIR was licensed and authorized by the state
of N.Y. to award junior and high school credits and/or diplomas.  

Thus, plaintiffs alleged that they were damaged as a direct
result of the wrongful, malicious, and illegal acts of the
defendants and should therefore be compensated to the fullest
extent permitted by law.  They are specifically seeking
$100,000,000 in damages and a jury trial.

The complaint is available free of charge at:

               http://researcharchives.com/t/s?eb9

The suit is "Bruno v. Wright et al., Case No. 9:06-cv-00808-DNH-
DEP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of New York under judge David N. Hurd with referral to Judge
David E. Peebles.

Representing the plaintiffs are Eric. C. Nordby, Timothy P.
Murphy and Christopher G. Todd of Hancock & Eastabrook, LLP,
Phone: (315) 471-3151, Fax: (315) 471-3167.


AK STEEL: Retirees Pleased With Unions' Affiliation With IAMAW
--------------------------------------------------------------
Retirees of both AK Steel Corp. and Armco Steel Co. were pleased
with the decision by AK Steel's independent steel workers' union
leaders, locked out by the company for nearly five months, to
affiliate with the International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, the Middletown Journal reports.

Michael Bailey, president of the Concerned Armco/AK Steel
Retired Employees said the new affiliation would give employees
at the Middletown Works leverage in contract talks.

It will also allow them "to move forward" in getting a
settlement on a new contract and ending the nearly five-month
lockout of the union by AK Steel.

Earlier, Mr. Bailey filed a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio seeking
preliminary injunction to stop the company from implementing a
plan that would increase retirees' health insurance costs.

According to the complaint, plaintiffs seek to represent two
classes consisting of:

     -- hourly production, maintenance and service employees;  
        and

     -- salaried non-exempt employees.

Included are spouses, surviving spouses and or dependents of
individuals, who worked under collective bargaining agreements
negotiated between the company and the Armco Employees
Independent Federation or a predecessor, who retired from such
employment between 1950 and the present, and whose retiree
benefits the company proposes to unilaterally change or
eliminate or seeks a declaration of its rights to do so.  

The suit alleges violations of both the Labor Management
Relations Act of 1947 and Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 by the company in seeking to change retiree
benefits.  The suit was filed by Carl NMI Reichenbach, James E.
Fetters, James McKinney, Jessee Schultz, Michael A. Bailey,
Richard P Tibbs, Ronnie L Banks, Rudolph Pringle, and Scott
Ratliff.

The suit comes nearly five months into the company's lockout of
its largest union, Armco Employees Independent Federation, Inc.   
Even though contract talks started last November, both sides
remain at an impasse.  The company maintains it must be
competitive while the AEIF counters that it must protect jobs
and living standards.

The lockout came about as the company announced last month that
effective Oct. 1, current AEIF retirees would be subject to
monthly premiums, to be adjusted each year.  Also, vision,
dental and Medicare subsidies will be eliminated, the company
said.

The complaint is at http://researcharchives.com/t/s?dfa.

The suit is "Bailey et al. v. AK Steel Corporation, Case No.
1:06-cv-00468-MRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Michael R. Barrett.

Representing the plaintiffs are David Marvin Cook and Stephen A.  
Simon, 22 West Ninth Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-
721-6500 and 513-721-7500, E-mail: dcook@dmcllc.com and  
ssimon@dmcllc.com.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Claims in Suits Over Information Leaks Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. said that plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice the remaining claims and waived their
right to appeal on all issues in the four class actions arising
from the disclosure of passenger name records by a vendor of the
company.  The cases are:  

      -- "Kimmell v. AMR, et al.," filed in the U.S. District
         Court in Texas,

      -- "Baldwin v. AMR, et al.," filed in the U.S. District
         Court in Texas,

      -- "Rosenberg v. AMR, et al.," filed in the U.S. District
         Court in New York, and

      -- "Anapolsky v. AMR, et al.," filed in the U.S. District
         Court in New York

The Kimmell suit was filed in April 2004.  The Baldwin and
Rosenberg cases were filed in May 2004.  The Anapolsky suit was
filed in September 2004.  

The suits allege various causes of action, including but not
limited to, violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and
violation of alleged common law rights of privacy.  

In each case plaintiffs seek statutory damages of $1000 per
passenger, plus additional unspecified monetary damages.

The court dismissed the cases but allowed leave to amend, and
the plaintiffs in the Kimmell and Rosenberg cases filed amended
complaints on June 24, 2005.   

The Kimmell and Rosenberg plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice the remaining claims and waived their right to appeal
on all issues, according to the company's July 25, 2006 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the period June 30, 2006.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Dismissed From Travel Agents' Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. was dismissed with prejudice as a
defendant in the class action, "Power Travel International, Inc.
v. American Airlines, Inc., et al.," which was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Filed on Aug. 19, 2002, and later amended on May 7, 2003, the
suit names as defendants:

     -- Continental Airlines,  

     -- Delta Air Lines,  

     -- United Airlines,

     -- Northwest Airlines, and

     -- American Airlines, Inc.

The suit alleges that the company and the other defendants
breached their contracts with the agency and were unjustly
enriched when these carriers at various times reduced their base
commissions to zero.  

The as yet uncertified class includes all travel agencies
accredited by the Airlines Reporting Corporation "whose base
commissions on airline tickets were unilaterally reduced to zero
by" the defendants.  

The claims against Delta Air Lines were dismissed, and the case
is stayed as to United Airlines and Northwest Airlines since
they filed for bankruptcy.

On April 19, 2006, a stipulation was filed dismissing the
company from the lawsuit with prejudice.

The suit is "Power Travel Intl. v. American Airlines, et al.,
Case No. 1:02-cv-07434-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Robert W.
Sweet.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Craig L. Briskin and Lawrence
Paskowitz of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100 Park
Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-907-0854, Fax: 212-883-
7054, E-mail: cbriskin@labaton.com.  

Representing the defendants is Richard M. Goldstein and Carla M.
Miller of Proskauer Rose LLP, 1585 Broadway, New York, NY 10036-
8299, Phone: (212) 969-3000.  


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Faces Flight Attendant Suit Over CBA
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. continues to face a consolidated class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, according to the company's July 25, 2006 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period June 30, 2006.
  
The suit, filed by Ann M. Marcoux, names as defendant:

      -- the Association of Professional Flight Attendants;
      -- the Union that represents the company's flight
         attendants; and
      -- the company.

The suit asks on behalf of all of the company's flight
attendants or various subclasses damages allegedly resulting
from the April 2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement referred to
as the Restructuring Participation Agreement.  

The RPA was one of three labor agreements the company
successfully reached with its unions in order to avoid filing
for bankruptcy in 2003.  

The suit is "Marcoux et al. v. American Airlines Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-01376-NG-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Nina Gershon
with referral to Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Emily Maruja Bass, Law Offices of Emily Bass, 25
         Washington Street, Suite 305 Brooklyn, NY 11201, Phone:
         718-522-9705, Fax: 718-522-9707, E-mail: eb@basslaw.us

     (2) Martin Garbus and Mark J. Rachman, Davis & Gilbert,
         LLP, 1740 Broadway, 21st floor, New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-468-4800, Fax: 212-468-4888, E-mail:
         mgarbus@dglaw.com or mrachman@dglaw.com

Representing the defendants are Thomas Edward Reinert, Jr.,
Melissa C. Rodriguez and Sam Scott Shaulson of Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLP, 101 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10178, Phone: 212-
309-6000, Fax: 212- 309-6273, E-mail: treinert@morganlewis.com,
mcrodriguez@morganlewis.com and sshaulson@morganlewis.com.  


AMERICAN AIRLINES: N.Y. Court Nixes Certain Claims in "Cooper"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
dismissed certain claims in the class action, "Sherry Cooper, et
al. v. TWA Airlines, LLC, et al." filed against American
Airlines, Inc.

The suit names as defendant:

      -- the Association of Professional Flight Attendants
         (APFA),

      -- the Union that represents the company's flight
         attendants, and

      -- the company

The suit seeks on behalf of all of the company's flight
attendants or various subclasses damages allegedly resulting
from, the April 2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement referred to
as the Restructuring Participation Agreement.  

The RPA was one of three labor agreements the company
successfully reached with its unions in order to avoid filing
for bankruptcy in 2003.  

The suit alleges various claims against the Union and the
company relating to the RPA and the ratification vote on the RPA
by individual Union members, including:

     -- violation of the Labor Management Reporting and  
        Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and the APFA's constitution and
        by-laws;

     -- violation by the Union of its duty of fair
        representation to its members;

     -- violation by the company of provisions of the Railway
        Labor Act through improper coercion of flightattendants
        into voting or changing their vote for ratification; and
  
     -- violations of the Racketeer  Influenced and Corrupt
        Organizations Act of 1970.

In this case, the court denied a preliminary injunction against
implementation of the RPA on June 30, 2003.

On March 28, 2006, the district court dismissed all of various
state law claims against the company, all but one of the LMRDA
claims against the APFA, and the claimed violations of RICO.

This leaves the claimed violations of the RPA and the duty of
fair representation against the company and the APFA, as well as
one LMRDA claim and one claim against the APFA of a breach of
the union constitution.

The suit is Case No. 1:02-cv-03477-NG-KAM filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge
Nina Gershon with referral to Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto.

Representing the plaintiffs is James Peter Allen, Sr. of Allen
Brothers, Attorneys & Counselors, P.L.L.C., 400 Monroe, Suite
220, Detroit, MI 48226, Phone: (313) 962-7777, Fax: 313-962-
0581, E-mail: jpallen@allenbrotherspllc.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Thomas Edward. Reinert, Jr. and Sam Scott Shaulson of
         Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 101 Park Avenue, New
         York, NY 10178, Phone: 212-309-6000, Fax: 212-309-6273,
         E-mail: treinert@morganlewis.com and
         sshaulson@morganlewis.com;

     (3) Daniel M. Katz of Katz & Ranzman, P.C., 5028 Wisconsin
         Avenue, N.W., Suite 250, Washington, DC 20016, Phone:
         (202) 659-4656, Fax: 202-237-2487, E-amil:
         danielmkatz@comcast.net; and

     (4) Travis M. Mastroddi of Cohen, Weiss and Simon, LLP, 330
         West 42nd Street, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10036,
         Phone: (212) 356-0248, Fax: 646-473-8248, E-mail:
         tmastroddi@cwsny.com.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Plaintiffs to Appeal Nixing of "Harrington"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to appeal the dismissal of a suit, filed as a
class action but not certified as such, over an alleged failure
by American Airlines, Inc. to refund certain governmental taxes
and fees collected by the company upon the sale of non-
refundable tickets when such tickets are not used for travel.

In the matter "Harrington v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al., --
filed Dec. 6, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts -- the plaintiffs sought unspecified actual
damages (trebled), declaratory judgment, injunctive relief,
costs, and attorneys' fees.   

The suit asserted various causes of action, including breach of
contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment against the company
and numerous other airline defendants.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, which was
granted.  Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal with the
First Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's July
25, 2006 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period June 30, 2006.  The company is
vigorously defending the suit and believes it to be without
merit.

However, a final adverse court decision requiring the company to
refund collected taxes and/or fees could have a material adverse
impact on the company.  

The suit is Case No. 1:04-cv-12558-NMG, filed before Judge
Nathaniel M. Gorton.

Representing the plaintiffs is Evans J. Carter of Evans J.
Carter, P.C., P.O. Box 812, Framingham, MA 01701, Phone: 508-
875-1669, Fax: 508-875-1449, E-mail: ejcatty1@Verizon.net.

Representing the defendants are Matthew A. Porter and Michael S.
Shin of Dechert, LLP, 200 Clarendon Street, 27th Floor, Boston,
MA 02116, Phone: 617-728-7100, Fax: 617-426-6567, E-mail:
matthew.porter@dechert.com and michael.shin@dechert.com.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Summary Ruling in Calif. Suit Under Appeal  
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit the summary judgment made by the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California in the class
action, "Westways World Travel, Inc. v. AMR Corporation, et al."

The suit names as defendants American Airlines, Inc., and:

     -- AMR Corp.,
     -- AMR Eagle Holding Corp.,  
     -- Airlines Reporting Corp., and
     -- the Sabre Group Holdings, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges that requiring travel agencies to pay debit
memos to the company for violations of American's fare rules by
customers of the agencies:

     * breaches the Agent Reporting Agreement between American
       and AMR Eagle and the plaintiffs;

     * constitutes unjust enrichment; and  

     * violates the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
       Organizations Act of 1970.

The certified class includes all travel agencies who have been
or will be required to pay money to American for debit memos for
fare rules violations from July 26, 1995 to the present.  The
plaintiffs seek to enjoin American from enforcing the pricing
rules in question and to recover the amounts paid for debit
memos, plus treble damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.  

On Feb. 24, 2005, the court decertified the class.  In September
2005, the Court granted Summary Judgment in favor of the company
and all other defendants.  Plaintiffs recently filed an appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The suit is Case No. 99-cv-07689-WDK-AIJ, filed before Judge
William D. Keller.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Linda S. Platisha, Linda S. Platisha Law Offices, 21520
         Yorba Linda Blvd., Ste. G-560 Yorba Linda, CA 92887,
         Phone: 714-694-1542; and

     (2) Dean Browning Webb, Dean Browning Webb Law Offices,
         8002 NE Hwy. 99, Ste. B Vancouver, WA 98665-8833,
         Phone: 503-629-2176, Fax: 503-629-9527.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Chad S. Hummel, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, 11355 W.
         Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614, Phone: 310-
         312-4000; and

    (ii) William A. Wargo, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, 333 S. Grand
         Ave., 45th Fl, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197, Phone: 213-
         229-7000.  


BALLARAT UNIVERSITY: Plaintiffs Allowed to Opt Out of Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court has ordered the National Tertiary Education
Union to ask University of Ballarat workers who do not want to
be involved in a class action over work contracts to opt out,
according to ABC Ballarat.

Workers who will opt out of the case will not be eligible for
any benefits or money should the case succeed, nor incur
penalties if the union loses.  The union is asking $7 million in
compensation, the report said.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman lodged a class action against
the university in February alleging that up to 700 staff members
were misled when the university said key employment conditions
would be safeguarded under Australian Workplace Agreement.  The
lead plaintiff in the case is Dr. Jeremy Smith, the branch
president of the National Tertiary Education Union.

The suit will go to trial as class action later this year,
according to Green Left Weekly (Class Action Reporter, March 7,
2006).  Interlocutory action against the university's use of AWA
was heard in the Federal Court on Feb. 22 and 24.  Earlier, the
Melbourne Federal Court Justice Neil Young dismissed application
for injunction against the university after the latter agreed to
issue a clarifying statement regarding its labor contracts
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 28, 2006).

Attorney for the employees is Kamal Farouque of Maurice
Blackburn, Phone: 03 9605 2827, Fax: 03 9600 2404, E-mail:
rhamer@mbc.aus.net, Web site:
http://www.mauriceblackburncashman.com.au/)

Ballarat University on the Net: http://www.ballarat.edu.au/.


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Supreme Court Vacates Order in "Disher" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court vacated a Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals' judgment that reversed a district court's remand of a
class action, "Disher v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc." to state
court, according to The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.

On Aug. 17, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit reversed the district court's grant of plaintiffs'
motion to remand the case to state court, and directed the
district court to dismiss the case as preempted under the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA).

                       Case Background

The suit was filed by Richard Disher on March 22, 2004 before a
circuit court.  Mr. Disher was a customer of the Salomon Smith
Barney.  He purchased shares of MCI WorldCom Incorporated
between April 16, 1998, and March 5, 1999.  He also purchased
shares of Rhythms Netconnections Inc. on Aug. 11, 1999.  As part
of its services for its customers, Salomon Smith issued
investment research reports and ratings on a stock's future
performance.

The subject of Mr. Disher's complaint included unspecified
stocks researched and rated by Salomon Smith's Internet and
Telecommunications research groups.

Salomon Smith represented that its reports employed a five-point
rating system: "buy," "outperform," "neutral," "underperform"
and "sell." Mr. Disher's complaint alleged that "no later than
March 2000," Salomon Smith "secretly abandoned its published
five-point rating system and instead utilized a de facto three-
point system of 'buy,' 'outperform,' and 'neutral'."

Specifically, a neutral recommendation allegedly was a coded
message from Salomon Smith to certain institutional customers to
sell a security.  Also, instead of assigning an underperform or
sell rating for a particular stock, Salomon Smith allegedly
would stop covering that stock, with no public announcement or
explanation.  Thus, the complaint alleged, Salomon Smith's
research ratings did not reflect its actual beliefs concerning
the future performance of a stock.

The gravamen of the complaint was that Salomon Smith's
misleading ratings induced Mr. Disher and class members to
continue holding their securities in reliance on Salomon Smith's
positive ratings when SSB's analysts no longer believed that
such ratings were warranted.  In addition, Salomon Smith also
allegedly used its research reports, ratings and recommendations
of certain stock to attract new, and to retain current,
investment banking clients "by agreeing to issue a research
rating for [those clients'] stock more favorably than Smith
Barney's research warranted."

Mr. Disher defined the putative class to include himself and
"all customers of Smith Barney who held one or more of the
Internet or Telecom Stocks in their Smith Barney accounts at
times when those stocks were declining in value and when Smith
Barney was rating those stocks as 'buy' 'outperform' or
'neutral' when such ratings were not warranted by Smith Barney's
research."  The complaint specifically excluded "any claims
based on Smith Barney's conduct in connection with plaintiff's
or any class member's purchases or sales of any of the Internet
Stocks or Telecom Stocks."

Salomon Smith timely removed the case to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois (Case No. 04 C 308) under
Judge G. Patrick Murphy on the basis of federal question
jurisdiction, diversity of citizenship jurisdiction,
jurisdiction related to bankruptcy proceedings, and preemption
under the SLUSA.

                   District Court Proceedings

SLUSA provides for the removal to federal court of certain class
actions based on state law in which the plaintiffs allege "a
misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection
with the purchase or sale of a covered security."  The district
court ruled that SLUSA did not apply in this case because the
alleged misconduct was not connected sufficiently to any
purchase or sale of stock.  Rather, the complaint alleged harm
solely from the retention of securities in reliance on Salomon
Smith's misleading research reports and ratings.  The district
court also concluded that there was no basis for removal under
the general removal statute, section 1441 of the Judiciary Code.

On Mr. Disher's motion, the district court remanded the case to
state court.

On appeal, Salomon Smith challenges the district court's
conclusion that Mr. Disher's action did not fall within SLUSA's
preemptive scope.

On Aug. 17, 2005, the appeals court reversed the judgment of the
district court and remand the case for further proceedings.

The Seventh Circuit found federal law mandated removal of the
action to federal court and that the district court's order was
a determination delegated to federal court by the SLUSA rather
than a determination of lack of adjudicatory competence,
according to Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.  Thus, it
was an appealable order rather than remand for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.


COLORADO: No Violation in Parolees Voting Rights, Court Says
------------------------------------------------------------
The Colorado Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court ruling
barring parolees from voting.

In this direct appeal pursuant to section 1-2-103(4) of the
Colorado Revised Statutes (2005), plaintiff-appellant Michael
Danielson challenged the decision of Gigi Dennis, in her
capacity as Colorado Secretary of State, to deny Mr. Danielson
and other felony parolees to register to vote or vote.

Mr. Danielson wishes to register to vote and vote.  Secretary of
State Dennis, however, will not allow Danielson and other
parolees to do so because the statutes, provides that no person
"serving a sentence of parole shall be eligible to register to
vote or to vote in any election."

Mr. Danielson challenged the constitutionality of this statute,
alleging it conflicts with article VII, section 10 of the
Colorado Constitution.  Article VII, section 10 provides that
persons who were qualified electors prior to their imprisonment
and who have served their full term of imprisonment, shall have
their rights of citizenship restored to them.

In dismissing the petition and complaint in this case, the
District Court for the City and County of Denver ruled in favor
of the Colorado Secretary of State that the statute is not
unconstitutional because it does not conflict with the
constitutional provision.

The Colorado Supreme Court holds that the General Assembly did
not violate article VII, section 10 of the Colorado Constitution
by enacting a law that prevents a person who has been convicted
of a felony and is serving a sentence of parole from voting or
registering to vote.

The intent of the constitutional phrase "full term of
imprisonment" in article VII, section 10 is to restore an
incarcerated person's full rights upon completion of the entire
duration of his or her sentence, or upon a pardon from the
Governor.  A person who is serving a sentence of parole has not
served his or her full term of imprisonment within the meaning
of this constitutional provision.  Appellants have not borne
their burden of clearly demonstrating that section 1-2-103(4) of
the Colorado Revised Statutes, is unconstitutional.

A copy of the court's opinion is available free of charge at:

            http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?eb1

Accordingly, the Colorado Supreme Court affirms the judgment of
the district court.

Plaintiffs in the suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado are:

     -- Mr. Danielson, a resident of Fort Collins, Colorado, who
        was sentenced to the Colorado Department of Corrections
        for a felony conviction and at the time of the filing in
        November was on parole;

     -- Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, a not-for-
        profit corporation incorporated in the state of
        Colorado; and

     -- Colorado-Cure, a not-for-profit organization
        incorporated in the state of Colorado.

Mr. Danielson, who was ordained as a minister while in prison,
through the Christian Alliance Ministry, filed the suit on
behalf of a class of all Colorado residents who are at least 18
years old, are U.S. citizens, and are serving sentences of
parole after completing a sentence of imprisonment in the
Colorado Department of Corrections at the time of the suit's
filing.

He is asking for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and an
award of reasonable attorney's fees.

Representing the plaintiff are Norman R. Mueller and Ty C. Gee
at Haddon Morgan Mueller Jordan Mackey & Foreman P.C. (in
cooperation with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
of Colorado) 150 E. 10th St. Denver, Colorado 80203, Phone:
(303) 831-7364.


DESNOES AND GEDDES: Pension Members Lose Bid to Wind up Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court dismissed a bid by members of the Desnoes and
Geddes Pensioners' Association to wind up the pension plan and
distribute a $1.1 billion surplus in the fund to them, according
to the Jamaica Gleaner.

Four members of the association filed a class action seeking to
terminate the pension plan, and a ruling declaring that four
amendments made to the Trust Deed between 1979 and 1995 were
invalid.  The suit was filed against Desnoes and Geddes Ltd.,
D&G Wines Ltd., which is in voluntary liquidation, and the
trustees of the pension plan.

The claimants alleged in the suit that the defendants did not
have the power to amend the trust deed of the pension plan.

Justice Ingrid Mangatal ruled that there was an express power to
amend the 1971 trust deed by virtue of the rule which empowered
Desnoes and Geddeto change the plan.  She also found that the
pension documents in their original form also gave Desnoes and
Gedde the power to decide all maters relating to the
administration, operation and interpretation of the plan and
also allowed the company to waive eligibility requirements,
according to the report.

Further, she ruled that the employers did not breach their
implied obligation to their employees to act in good faith.  She
said that none of the amendments had adversely affected the
benefits of the members.  In fact, some of the amendments, in
particular those relating to the widening of the investment
powers and the inclusion of worker-nominated trustees, had been
beneficial to the members and employees.

Representing the claimants are attorneys Leonard Green and
Vincent Chen, associate at Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, 101 Park
Avenue, New York, New York 10178 (New York Co.), Phone: 212-808-
7800, Fax: 212-808-7897.

Representing the defendants are attorneys Sandra Minott-
Phillips and Emile Leiba, instructed by attorneys Peter Goldson
and Monica Ladd, of Myers, Fletcher and Gordon.  On the Net:
http://www.mfg-law.com/.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of "Beeman"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the
dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California of a class action filed against Express Scripts, Inc.
and other pharmacy benefit management companies, according to
the company's July 26, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30,
2006.

The complaint, filed by several California pharmacies as a
putative class action and served to defendants on Dec. 12, 2002,
alleged that the company, and the other defendants, failed to
comply with statutory obligations under California Civil Code
Section 2527 to provide California clients with the results of a
bi-annual survey of retail drug prices (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 9, 2004).

On July 12, 2004, the case was dismissed with prejudice on the
grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action.

On June 2, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the district court's opinion on standing and remanded
the case to the district court.

The suit is "Jerry Beeman & Pharm, et al. v. Caremark, Inc., et
al., Case No. 5:02-cv-01327-VAP-SGL," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, under Judge
Virginia A. Phillips.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Michael A. Bowse, Bonny A. Sweeney, Milberg Weiss
         Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 355 S Grand Ave, Ste 4170, Los
         Angeles, CA 90071-3172, Phone: 213-617-9007, Fax: 213-
         617-9185;

     (2) Allan Browne, Browne & Woods, 450 N Roxbury Dr, 7th Fl
         Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4231, Phone: 310-274-7100; and

     (3) Alan M. Mansfield, Helen D. Rosner, Rosner Law and
         Mansfield, 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, First Fl, San
         Diego, CA 92131, Phone: 858-348-1005, E-mail:
         alan@rosnerandlaw.com.  

Representing the company are:

     (i) Christopher Chorba, Gail E. Lees, Gibson Dunn &
         Crutcher, 333 S Grand Ave, 45th Fl, Los Angeles, CA
         90071-3197, Phone: 213-229-7000;

    (ii) Thomas M Dee, Angela S. Quinn, Christopher A. Smith,
         Christopher J. Valeriote, Husch & Eppenberger, 190
         Carondelet Plaza, Ste 600, St Louis, MO 63105-3441
         Phone: 314-480-1500; and

   (iii) Douglas C Rawles, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, 300 S Grand
         Ave, 22nd Fl, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132, Phone: 213-
         612-2500.


FIDELITY FEDERAL: Reaches $50M Settlement in Fla. DPPA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust settled for $50 million a
purported class action, "James Kehoe v. Fidelity Federal Bank &
Trust," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the company over alleged violation
of the Driver Privacy Protection Act, the Palm Beach Post
reports.

Under the settlement, $10 million will be paid as attorneys'
fees, to be shared by Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins, two Miami law firms, and one Tampa firm.  

The remaining $40 million would be divided among motorists in
Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie and Broward counties who filed
claims.  They will get no more than $160 each.

Fidelity Federal attorney Louis Mrachek told U.S. District Judge
Daniel T.K. Hurley that the settlement, which has yet to be
approved by the judge, hinges on the completion of the merger
with National City Corp. of Cleveland, who announced its
intention of buying the 54-year-old institution for $1 billion.

Fidelity Federal bought 565,600 names and addresses of motorists
who recently purchased vehicles from the Florida Department of
Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles from 2000 to 2003 and used the
information to send brochures pitching auto loans.

Mr. Mrachek said the bank didn't know buying the names violated
federal law, which allows for penalties of up to $2,500 per
violation of the Driver Privacy Protection Act.

The law targets anyone who "knowingly obtains, discloses or uses
personal information from a motor vehicle record," according to
the report.

Mr. Mrachek said Fidelity Federal would consider suing the state
for selling the names in violation of federal law.  

                         Case Background

On July 1, 2003, James Kehoe, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated persons, filed a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
against Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust.

The suit alleged that the company violated DPPA by obtaining
driver registration information from the State of Florida for
use in its marketing efforts.  It sought $1.4 billion
remuneration from Fidelity Federal.

On June 14, 2004, the court granted the company's Motion for
Summary Judgment and entered a final Judgment in favor of
Fidelity Federal against Mr. Kehoe ruling that there could be no
statutory minimum damages award unless there were some actual
damages.  This issue was only one of several raised by the
company.  The court did not rule on the other issues.

Mr. Kehoe appealed that ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals and on August 26, 2005, the Circuit Court reversed the
Trial Court's Order of Summary Judgment and remanded this case
back to the trial court for further proceedings, stating that if
there was a finding of damages that such damages could be no
less then the statutory minimum per class member.  Consequently,
the potential damages that could be awarded would be the result
of multiplying the statutory minimum of $2,500 per class member
by the total class of defendants.

However, the Circuit Court also stated that the trial court "in
its discretion, may fashion what it deems to be an appropriate
award."  The Circuit Court also stated that, "the use of the
word `may' suggests that the award of any damages is permissive
and discretionary."  

The suit is "James Kehoe v. Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley.  

Representing the plaintiffs is Paul Geller of The Law Offices of
Paul S. Geller, 225 S. Lake Ave., 10th Floor, Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (626) 792-2280, Fax (626) 792-2282; or The Watt Plaza,
1875 Century Park East, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA  90067,  
Phone: (310) 491-7885.

Representing the defendants is L. Louis Mrachek of Page,
Mrachek, Fitzgerald & Rose, P.A., Suite 600, 505 S.Flagler Dr.
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, Phone: (561) 355-6970, Fax:  
(561) 655-5537, E-mail: lmrachek@pm-law.com, Web site:
http://www.pm-law.com.


HARRAH'S CHEROKEE: Employee Files Race Discrimination Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harrah's Cherokee Casino in North Carolina faces a purported
class action that accuses it of discriminating against
potentially hundreds of workers based on their race, The
Asheville Citizen-Times reports.

Jackson County resident Edward Yashenko filed the suit on July
19, 2006, claiming that the casino combined his job as manager
of employee relations with another job while he was out on 12
weeks of unpaid sick leave in 2003.

According to court papers, the company gave the new position to
an enrolled member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and
told Mr. Yashenko when he returned that he no longer had a job.

Mr. Yashenko's lawsuit, which seeks class-action status,
contends that the action violates the law.  Thus, he claims that
defendants implemented and employed a racially discriminatory
policy that grants employment preferences to members of the
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in most, or all, employment
opportunities at the Cherokee Casino.

The lawsuit also claimed that "hundreds of persons in North
Carolina have been terminated from their employment" because
they are not members of the tribe.

Harrah's Entertainment on the Net: http://www.harrahs.com/.


ILLINOIS: Plaintiffs in U46 Dist. Suit Refute Dismissal of Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for the plaintiffs in a racial discrimination lawsuit
against Elgin School District U46 have filed a brief in response
to a district court's second motion to dismiss the suit,
according to the Daily Herald.

In the brief, attorneys for families suing the school disputed
the claim of the district saying that even if all the
allegations made in the lawsuit were true, the families would
still not have suffered a legal wrong.  It also emphasized the
continuity between the first and latest versions of the lawsuit
in response to the court's comment that the case seemed to
deviate from the one first filed.  It further argued the
district court's claim that the lawsuit is "unnecessarily
lengthy and argumentative," noting the latest version is one-
third the length of the original.

The district now has a month to submit its response, likely the
final entry before the court rules, according to the report.

In May, plaintiffs revised the suit to add two Hispanic families
and an African-American family.  The suit accuses the school
district of:

     -- treating minority students with hostility;,  
     
     -- disproportionately referring black and Latino students  
        to an alternative high school;  

     -- providing fewer academic opportunities for minorities;  
        and  

     -- failing to provide proper services to Latino students  
        with limited English proficiency.

A black family and a Hispanic family in Elgin filed the suit in  
2005 to complain about the closure of Illinois Park Elementary
School in 2004.   

The suit plans to seek relief for all Hispanic and black
students who claim they were discriminated against in
assignments, transportation, school closings and educational
programs.

In March, District Court Judge Robert Gettleman refused to
certify the lawsuit, saying the complaint must be narrowed, or
the plaintiff list must be expanded to accommodate all of the
issues listed to get class certification.  

In the second amended complaint, filed May, one of the children
in the original group, Ashley Ivy, withdrew from the suit after
finishing school.  An 18-year-old student Eduardo Burciaga asked
to be redesignated as a plaintiff and is suing the district on
his own behalf rather than through his parents.

Meanwhile, the children of Griselda Burciaga, Beverly Ivy and
Irma Sifuentes, asked to join the suit.  Earlier plaintiffs
included the children of Tracy McFadden and Marielena Montoya.

The class in the "McFadden v. U46" suit now includes all current
African-American and Hispanic students in the district.  

A Sept. 28, 2006 court hearing has been set.

The original suit is "Daniel et al. v. Board of Education for
Illinois School District U-46, Case No. 1:05-cv-00760," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
under Judge Robert W. Gettleman.  Representing the plaintiffs is  
Carol Rose Ashley of Futterman & Howard, Chtd., 122 South  
Michigan Ave., Suite 1850, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 427-  
3600, E-mail: cashley@futtermanhoward.com.  

Representing the defendants is Patricia J. Whitten of Franczek  
Sullivan, P.C., 300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3400, Chicago, IL  
60606-6785, Phone: (312) 986-0300, E-mail: pjw@franczek.com.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Continues to Face Calif. Labor Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corp. or IBM remains a defendant
in a nationwide overtime pay class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On Jan. 24, 2006, a putative class action was filed against IBM
on behalf of technical support workers whose primary
responsibilities are or were to install and maintain computer
software and hardware.  

The complaint was subsequently amended on March 13, 2006.  The
First Amended Complaint, among other things, adds four
additional named plaintiffs and modifies the definition of the
workers purportedly included in the class.  

The suit alleges the company failed to pay overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law, and
asserts violations of various state wage requirements, including
record keeping and meal-break provisions.  It also asserts
certain violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

Specifically, the suit charges that IBM deprives its employees
who install, maintain, and support computer software and
hardware by unlawfully characterizing them as "exempt" from
state and federal labor law protections (Class Action Reporter,
March 16, 2006).  

The proposed classes consist of current and former IBM technical
support workers with the primary duties of installing and/or
maintaining computer software and hardware for IBM who were
wrongly classified by the company as exempt from the overtime
provisions of federal law and/or applicable state wage and hour
laws.

Relief sought includes back wages, corresponding 401K and
pension plan credits, interest, and attorneys' fees.

The suit is "Rosenburg et al. v. International Business Machines
Corporation, Case No. 3:06-cv-00430-PJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) James M. Finberg of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
         LLP, Phone: 415-956-1000;

     (2) Todd F. Jackson of Lewis Feinberg Renaker & Jackson,
         P.C., Phone: 510-839-6824;

     (3) Steven G. Zieff of Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, LLP, Phone:
         415-434-9800 or 800-869-0165;  

     (4) Adam T. Klein of Outten & Golden LLP, Phone: 212-245-
         1000;

     (5) Ira Spiro of Spiro, Moss, Barness, Harrison & Barge,
         LLP, Phone: 310-235-2468;

     (6) J. Derek Braziel of Lee & Braziel, LLP, Phone: 214-749-
         1400;

     (7) Richard Burch of Bruckner Burch, PLLC, Phone: 713-877-
         8065;

     (8) David Borgen of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen &
         Dardarian, Phone: 510-763-9800.

Representing the company is Donna M. Mezias of Jones Day, 555
California Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone:
415-875-5822, Fax: 415-875-5700, E-mail: dmezias@jonesday.com.

For more details, call: 1-866-397-1008 or visit the Web site:
http://www.overtimepaylawsuitagainstIBM.com.


LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Party in Welding Rod Products Liability Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. is a co-defendant in a suit
involving claims of manganese-induced illness by approximately
7,189 plaintiffs as of June 30, 2006.  The number of plaintiffs
is down by 1,581 from previous report.

The claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most
cases for unspecified sums.  They allege that exposure to
manganese contained in welding consumables caused the plaintiffs
to develop adverse neurological conditions, including a
condition known as manganism.  

Many of the cases are single plaintiff cases but some multi-
claimant cases have been filed, including alleged class actions
in various states.

As of June 30, 2006, cases involving 3,820 claimants were filed
in or transferred to federal court where the Judicial Panel on
MultiDistrict Litigation has consolidated these cases for
pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio.  

Plaintiffs have also filed class actions seeking medical
monitoring in eight state courts, seven of which have been
removed to the MDL Court.  

Since Jan. 1, 1995, the company has been a co-defendant in
similar cases that have been resolved as:

     * 7,590 of those claims were dismissed;

     * nine were tried to defense verdicts in favor of the
       company;

     * two were tried to hung juries, one of which resulted in a
       plaintiff's verdict upon retrial and one of which
       resulted in a defense verdict upon retrial (subsequently,
       however, a motion for a new trial has been granted); and

     * 12 were settled for immaterial amounts.

The consolidated suit is, "In re: Welding Rod Products Liability
Litigation, Case No. 1:03-CV-17000, MDL Docket No. 1535," filed
in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
under Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Russell T. Abney of Watts Law Firm, 14th Floor, 555
         North Caranchaua, Corpus Christi, TX 78478, Phone: 713-
         621-7944, Fax: 713-621-9638, E-mail: russ@abney.us; and

     (2) Roy F. Amedee, Jr. of Roy F. Amedee Attorney at Law,
         425 W. Airline Hwy., Suite B, LaPlace, LA 70068, Phone:
         985-651-6101, Fax: 985-651-6104.  

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Michael W. Ulmer of Watkins & Eager, 300 Emporium
         Bldg., 400 East Capitol Street, Jackson, MS 39201,
         Phone: 601-965-1948, Fax: 601-354-3623, E-mail:
         mulmer@watkinseager.com; and

    (ii) Richard E. Sarver of Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman
         Sarver, 1800 LL & E Tower, 909 Poydras Street, New
         Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-598-9700, Fax: 504-598-
         9701, E-mail: rsarver@barrassousdin.com.


MISSOURI: Aug. Hearing Set in Franklin County Property Tax Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Cynthia Eckelkamp has rescheduled a July 21
preliminary hearing to settle a suit over county property tax
rates against the Franklin County to Aug. 4, 2006, 11:00 a.m.
according to an attorney for the defendant.

The court reset the hearing to give parties extra time to draft
a settlement agreement and so expert testimony could be taken
regarding issues involved in the proposed settlement, according
to Byron E. Francis, attorney for Franklin County.  At the
hearing, former Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Edward
"Chip" Robertson is expected to testify on the reasonableness of
attorney fees, according to The Missourian.  

Mr. Robertson was reportedly involved in a number of Hancock
Amendment cases and is considered an expert on the ways attorney
fees are calculated in complex class actions involving tax rate
challenges.  He previously testified as an expert witness on
behalf of the class of taxpayers, "Robert N. Vogt v. Linda
Emmons et al."  The case remains pending.  In the proceedings,
Judge Jeff W. Schaeperkoetter ruled the county collected excess
property tax revenues in 2000, 2001 and 2002.  He awarded the
law firm of Armstrong Teasdale LLP $115,000 in attorneys fees.

Other lawsuits covering the years 2003 and 2005 were
subsequently filed.  The total amount of excess taxes collected
for all of the years in question is approximately $2.7 million,
according to the report.

Recently, lawyers from both parties told Judge Eckelkamp they
had reached an informal agreement.  Marc Ellinger, a lawyer for
the county, said the settlement would provide for a voluntary
reduction in county property tax rates for the years 2006, 2008,
2009 and 2010.

Reportedly, sources said the proposed settlement would include
approximately $300,000 in attorney fees for lawyers representing
the class of taxpayers over what has already been paid.  

For more information, contact Mr. Francis at Armstrong Teasdale
LLP, One Metropolitan Square, Suite 2600, St. Louis, Missouri
63102-2740 (Independent City), Phone: 314-621-5070, 314-621-
5065.


PIZZA HUT: Calif. FLSA Suit Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of California gave
preliminary approval to the settlement of a class action
alleging violations of the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act against
Pizza Hut, Inc..

The suit, "Coldiron v. Pizza Hut, Inc.," was filed on Aug. 13,
2003, contending that the company's current and former Pizza Hut
Restaurant General Managers were improperly classified as exempt
employees.  There is also a pendent state law claim, alleging
that current and former general managers in California were
misclassified under that state's law.  Plaintiff seeks unpaid
overtime wages and penalties.  

On May 5, 2004, the court granted conditional certification of a
nationwide class of Restaurant General Managers under the FLSA
claim, providing notice to prospective class members and an
opportunity to join the class.  

Approximately 12 percent of the eligible class members have
joined the litigation as of June 29, 2005, although a number
were later stricken by the District Court.  Once class
certification discovery is completed, the company intends to
challenge the propriety of conditional class certification.  

On July 20, 2004, the court granted summary judgment on Ms.
Coldiron's individual FLSA claim.  The company believes that the
District Court's summary judgment ruling in favor of Ms.
Coldiron is clearly erroneous under well-established legal
precedent.  

Ms. Coldiron also filed a motion to certify an additional class
of current and former California Restaurant General Managers
under California state law, a motion for summary judgment on her
individual state law claims and a motion requesting that the
District Court enter summary judgment on the damages that FLSA
class members would be due upon successful prosecution of the
class-wide litigation.  The company opposed all three motions.  

On April 1, 2005, the court issued an order granting Ms.
Coldiron's motion to certify a California state law class.  On
April 15, 2005, the company filed a petition for review of that
order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On May 5, 2005, the court sua sponte filed an order extending
the opt-in cut-off date in the FLSA action until Sept. 1, 2005.  
On May 13, 2005, the court sua sponte amended its April 1, 2005
order to identify the California class claims and appoint class
counsel.  On May 27, 2005, the company filed a petition for
review of the amended order by the Ninth Circuit.  

On June 30, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to
strike all FLSA class members who joined the litigation after
July 15, 2004.  The effect of this order is to reduce the number
of FLSA class members to only approximately 87, or approximately
2.5% of the eligible class members.

In November 2005, the parties agreed to a settlement.  The court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement on June 28, 2006.  

The parties will now proceed with the final fairness hearing and
class notice, with conclusion of this matter expected in late
2006.

The suit is "Ann Coldiron v. Pizza Hut Inc., et al., Case No.
2:03-cv-05865-TJH-Mc," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge Terry J. Hatter.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bicvan T. Brown, Rex Hwang, Justian Jusuf, Gregory G.
         Petersen, and H. Ernie Nishii of Castle Petersen and
         Krause, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 1250, Newport
         Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949-417-5600, E-mail:
         justian@cpk-law.com; and

     (2) Catherine Starr of Catherine Starr Law Offices, 24325
         Crenshaw Blvd, Suite 211, Torrance, CA 90505 Phone:
         310-539-4806, Fax: 310-539-2454.

Representing the company are:

     (i) Andra Barmash Greene, Layn R. Phillips, Henry Shields,
         Jr. and Bruce A. Wessell, Irell & Manella, 1800 Avenue
         of the Stars, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276,
         Phone: 310-277-1010, fax: 310-203-7199, E-mail:
         lphillips@irell.com, hshields@irell.com or
         bwessell@irell.com; and

    (ii) George A. McNamee, III, Richard S. Ruben, Ellen
         Laguerta Uy, Paula Maxine Weber, Pillsbury Winthrop,
         725 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017-
         5406, Phone: 213-488-7100.


PRAXAIR INC: Faces Claims in Welding Rod Products Liability Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Praxair, Inc., was a co-defendant with many other companies in
2,008 lawsuits as of a June 30, 2006 count, alleging personal
injury caused by manganese contained in welding fumes.

Among such matters are claims brought by welders alleging that
exposure to manganese contained in welding fumes caused
neurological injury.

The company has never manufactured welding consumables.  A
predecessor of the company manufactured such products prior to
1985.

There were a total of 6,995 individual claimants in these cases.
The cases were pending in state or federal courts in Alabama,
Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West
Virginia.

The federal cases are being transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.  

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and, in most instances,
punitive damages.  Eight of the cases are proposed class actions
seeking medical monitoring on behalf of welders.  None of the
class actions have been certified.

In the past, the company has either been dismissed from the
cases with no payment or has settled a few cases for nominal
amounts.  

The consolidated suit is, "In re: Welding Rod Products Liability
Litigation, Case No. 1:03-CV-17000, MDL Docket No. 1535," filed
in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
under Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Russell T. Abney of Watts Law Firm, 14th Floor, 555
         North Caranchaua, Corpus Christi, TX 78478, Phone: 713-
         621-7944, Fax: 713-621-9638, E-mail: russ@abney.us; and

     (2) Roy F. Amedee, Jr. of Roy F. Amedee Attorney at Law,
         425 W. Airline Hwy., Suite B, LaPlace, LA 70068, Phone:
         985-651-6101, Fax: 985-651-6104.

Representing the defendants are:

     (i) Richard E. Sarver of Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman
         Sarver, 1800 LL & E Tower, 909 Poydras Street, New
         Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-598-9700, Fax: 504-598-
         9701, E-mail: rsarver@barrassousdin.com.

    (ii) David C. Landever of Weisman, Kennedy & Berris, Ste.
         1600, 101 Prospect Avenue, W, Cleveland, OH 44115,
         Phone: 216-781-1111, Fax: 216-781-6747, E-mail:
         dlandever@wisemanlaw.com; and

   (iii) Jessica D. Miller of O'Melveny & Myers, 555 13th
         Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006, Phone: 202-383-5157,
         Fax: 202-383-5414, E-mail: jmiller@omm.com.


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Circuit Court Affirms Okla. Stock Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma's
dismissal of a securities class action against Pre-Paid Legal
Services, Inc.

Originally, the company and several of its executive officers
were named as defendants in a putative securities class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma in early 2001, seeking unspecified damages on the basis
of allegations that the company issued false and misleading
financial information, primarily related to the method it used
to account for commission advance receivables from sales
associates.  

On March 5, 2002, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, and entered a judgment in
favor of the defendants.  Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion
requesting reconsideration of the dismissal, which was denied.  

Plaintiffs have appealed the judgment and the order denying
their motion to reconsider the judgment to the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals.  In August 2002 the lead institutional
plaintiff withdrew from the case, leaving two-individual
plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs on behalf of the putative class.  
As of Dec. 31, 2003, the briefing in the appeal had been
completed.  

On Jan. 14, 2004 oral argument was held in the appeal.  On July
14, 2006 the Tenth Circuit Court entered an Order and Judgment
affirming the trial court's dismissal with prejudice.

The suit is "In Re: Pre-Paid Securities, et al. v., Case No.
5:01-cv-00182," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District Western District of Oklahoma under Judge Robin J.
Cauthron.  

Representing the plaintiffs are, Stuart W. Emmons and William B.
Federman of Federman & Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson Ave., Suite
2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, Fax: 405-
239-2112, E-mail: swe@federmanlaw.com and wfederman@aol.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Brooke S Murphy of Crowe & Dunlevy-OKC, 20 N. Broadway
         Ave., Suite 1800, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-
         235-7735, Fax: 405-272-5278, E-mail:
         murphyb@crowedunlevy.com;

     (2) Margaret M. Snyder of Clifford Chance Rogers & Wells,
         LLP, Steuart Street Tower, One Market Plaza, San
         Francisco, CA 94105-1420, Phone: 415-778-4700, Fax:
         415-778-4701; and

     (3) Robert P. Varian of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe-San
         Francisco, 405 Howard St., The Orrick Building, San
         Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-5934, Fax: 415-773-
         5759, E-mail: rvarian@orrick.com.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Settles Age Discrimination Suit in Ga. for $5.5M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beverly B. Martin of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia approved a $5.5 million settlement
in a class action against Sprint Corp., now Sprint Nextel, over
age discrimination, The Kansas City Star reports.

The settlement covers 462 plaintiffs over the age 40 who were
fired during Sprint's employee reductions in force between April
1, 2003 and May 31, 2004.  At least 90 percent of the eligible
plaintiffs agreed to the settlement offers, according to the
report.

Plaintiffs will get a total of about $3.5 million, or an average
of about $6,000 each, prorated according to a formula, with the
remaining $2 million going to their lawyers.

Sprint Nextel agreed to the settlement "without admission or
finding of liability or wrongdoing." However, it was not
directed to change its hiring or firing practices.

The suit is "Cavanaugh v. Sprint/United Management Company, Case
No. 1:04-cv-03418-BBM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia under Judge Beverly B. Martin.

Representing the defendants are Hunter R. Hughes, III, Ashley R.
Hurst and John Timothy McDonald all of Rogers & Hardin, 229
Peachtree Street, N.E., 2700 International Tower, Peachtree
Center, Atlanta, GA 30303-1601, Phone: 404-522-4700 or 404-420-
4617, E-mail: hrh@rh-law.com or arh@rh-law.com or jtm@rh-
law.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David C. Ates of David Ates, P.C., Suite 750, 730
         Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30308, Phone: 404-969-
         4104, Fax: 404-969-4141, E-mail:
         dates@davidateslawfirm.com;

     (2) John R. Ates of Albo & Oblon, LLP, Suite 1201, 2200
         Clarendon Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22201, Phone: 703-
         562-3385, E-mail: jra@albo-oblon.com;

     (3) Matthew C. Billips of Miller & Billips, 730 Peachtree
         Street, Suite 750, Atlanta, GA 30308, Phone: 404-969-
         4101, Fax: (404) 969-4141, E-mail:
         mbillips@mbalawfirm.com;

     (4) Dennis E. Egan of The Popham Law Firm, P.C., Suite 200,
         323 West 8th Street, Kansas City, MO 64105, Phone: 816-
         221-2288; and

     (5) Harlan Stuart Miller, III of Miller Billips & Ates, 730
         Peachtree Street, Suite 750, Atlanta, GA 30308, Phone:
         404-969-4101, E-mail: hmiller@mbalawfirm.com.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Ga. Settlement Won't Affect Kans. Age Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Egan, a lawyer at The Popham Law Firm, PC, who represents
plaintiffs in the matter, "Williams v. Sprint/United Management
Co.," said that settlement in the Georgia discrimination suit
against Sprint Corp., now Sprint Nextel, would not affect his
case, the Kansas City Business Journal reports.

In 2003, about 2,300 former Sprint Corp. employees filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
against Sprint over age discrimination (Class Action Reporter,
October 19, 2004).

The suit alleged Sprint engaged in a "pattern and practice of
age discrimination" by lowering performance evaluations of over-
40 workers or moving them into positions slated for elimination.

It also contended that Sprint wrongly used age information in
making performance rankings and job assignments in advance of
impending mass layoffs.

The case was scheduled to go to trial in January 2007, however
Mr. Egan said that it has been delayed to allow more time for
discovery.  More than 400 depositions have been taken so far,
including one from former Sprint chief executive officer Bill
Esrey, according to the report.

Mr. Egan said he would be open to a settlement for the right
amount, but he declined to name a figure.

The suit is "Williams v. Sprint/United Management Company, Case
No. 2:03-cv-02200-JWL-DJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
District of Kansas, under Judge John W. Lungstrum, with referral
to Judge David J. Waxse.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Matthew C. Billips of Miller, Billips & Ates, PC, 730
         Peachtree St. - Ste. 750, Atlanta, GA 30328, Phone:
         404-969-4101, Fax: 404-969-4141, E-mail:
         mbillips@mbalawfirm.com;

     (2) Deborah J. Blakely of White, Allinder, Graham & Buckley
         LLC, 19049 E. Valley View Parkway - Ste. C,
         Independence, MO 64055, Phone: 816-373-9080, Fax: 816-
         373-9319, E-mail: dblakely@wagblaw.com;

     (3) Laurie A. McCann of the AARP Foundation Litigation, 601
         E. Street, NW, Washington, DC 20049, Phone: 202-434-
         2060, Fax: 202-434-6424, E-mail: lmccann@aarp.org;

     (4) Kenneth B. McClain of Humphrey, Farrington & McClain,
         221 West Lexington-Ste. 400, P. O. Box 900,
         Independence, MO 64051, Phone: 816-836-5050, Fax: 816-
         836-8966, E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com; and

     (5) Claudio E. Molteni of The Popham Law Firm, P.C., 323
         West 8th St.-Ste. 200, Kansas City, MO 64105-1679,
         Phone: 816-221-2288 x219, Fax: 816-221-3999, E-mail:
         cmolteni@pophamlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Thomas A. McCarthy, Christine F. Miller, James F.
         Monafo, Tamara M. Spicer and Harry B. Wilson, Jr. all
         of Husch & Eppenberger, LLC- St Louis, 190 Carondelet
         Plaza, Suite 600, St. Louis, MO 63105-3441, Phone: 314-
         480-1500, Fax: 314-480-1505, E-mail:
         thomas.mccarthy@husch.com or chris.miller@husch.com or  
         jim.monafo@husch.com or tamara.spicer@husch.com or  
         harry.wilson@husch.com;

     (2) David A. Schatz and John J. Yates both of Husch &
         Eppenberger, LLC - Kansas City 1200 Main Street, Suite
         2300 Kansas City, MO 64105, Phone: 816-421-4800, Fax:
         816-421-0596, E-mail: david.schatz@husch.com or
         jack.yates@husch.com;

     (3) Stephany J. Newport and Chris R. Pace both of Sprint,
         6450 Sprint Parkway, Overland Park, KS 66251, Phone:
         913-315-9392 or 913-315-9786, Fax: 913-523-0390 or 913-
         523-0392, E-mail: stephany.newport@mail.sprint.com or
         chris.r.pace@mail.sprint.com;

     (4) Paul D. Seyferth of Seyferth Knittig LLC, 300 Wyandotte
         - Ste. 430, Kansas City, MO 64105, Phone: 816-756-0700,
         Fax: 816-76-3700, E-mail: paul@seyferthknittig.com; and

     (5) John Da Grosa Smith of Rogers & Hardin LLP, 2700
         International Tower, 229 Peachtree Street, N.E.,
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1601, Phone: 404-522-4700, Fax: 404-
         525-2224, E-mail: jds@rh-law.com.


SUPA-BOUNCE PTY: Settlement Talks Ongoing in Bouncy Castle Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An out-of-court settlement is being negotiated to resolve a
class action filed against Supa-Bounce Pty Ltd. after the death
of an eight-year-old girl playing on the company's Maxi-Giraffe
Supa-Bouncer, The Advertiser reports.

Duncan Basheer Hannon lawyer Brett Allen, who is representing
several victims said, "Legal proceedings have not been served
against the defendants in the hope that it can be settled by
negotiation out of court."

Jessica Gorostiaga was killed in March 2001 after winds of 100-
120 km/h hit the bouncy castle ride, ripping it from its anchors
and lifting it into the air, according to findings by coroner
Wayne Chivells.  Another 15 people were injured.

The coroner also said that the anchorage specified by the
company was "inadequate," leading Starlite owner Des Healy and
his staff to resort to a different system, using car axles, the
Courier-Mail reports.

In 2004, Jessica's mother joined the parents of other children
injured in the incident in filing a class action in district
court against the castle's manufacturer, Supa-Bounce Pty Ltd.,
the Kapunda Harness Racing Club and the proprietors and
employees of the business which owned the castle.

Duncan Basheer Hannon on the Net: http://www.dbh.com.au/.


TACO BELL: Discovery Continues in Calif. ADA Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in the class action "Moeller, et al.
v. Taco Bell Corp.," which is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, according to the
company's July 25, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Dec. 17, 2002, Taco Bell Corp. was named as the defendant in
a class action, "Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp.," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California  

On Aug. 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
alleges, among other things, that the company discriminated
against the class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for
mobility by failing to make its approximately 220 company-owned
restaurants in California accessible to the class.  

Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and
structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the
path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with
mobility-related disabilities -- including parking spaces,
ramps, counters, restroom facilities and seating -- do not
comply with the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh
Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act
(CDPA).  Plaintiffs have requested:

     (1) an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco
         Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing
         regulations;

     (2) that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation
         of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and

     (3) monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA.
        
Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum
statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh
Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of the
class.  They contend that there may be in excess of 100,000
individuals in the class.  

For themselves, the four named plaintiffs have claimed aggregate
minimum statutory damages of no less than $16,000, but are
expected to claim greater amounts based on the number of company
outlets they visited at which they claim to have suffered
discrimination.

On Feb. 23, 2004, the district court granted Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  The district court certified a Rule
23(b)(2) mandatory injunctive relief class of all individuals
with disabilities who use wheelchairs or electric scooters for
mobility who, at any time on or after Dec. 17, 2001, were
denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis of
disability, the full and equal enjoyment of the California
Restaurants.  The class includes claims for injunctive relief
and minimum statutory damages.

Pursuant to the parties' agreement, on or about Aug. 31, 2004,
the district court ordered that the trial of this action be
bifurcated so that stage one will resolve plaintiffs' claims for
equitable relief and stage two will resolve plaintiffs' claims
for damages.  

Parties are currently proceeding with the equitable relief stage
of this action.  During this stage, the company filed a motion
to partially decertify the class to exclude from the Rule
23(b)(2) class claims for monetary damages.  

The district court denied the motion.  Plaintiffs filed their
own motion for partial summary judgment as to liability relating
to a subset of the California Restaurants.  The district court
denied that motion as well.  Discovery is still ongoing.

The suit is Case No. 3:02-cv-05849, filed before Judge Martin J.
Jenkins.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Timothy P. Fox of Fox & Robertson, P.C., 910-16th
         Street, Suite 610, Denver, CO 80202, Phone: 303-595-
         9700, Fax: 303-595-9705, E-mail: tfox@foxrob.com; and

     (2) Brad Seligman of The Impact Fund, 125 University Ave.,
         Berkeley, CA 94710, Phone: 510-845-3473 ext. 304, Fax:
         510-845-3654, E-mail: bs@impactfund.org.

Representing the defendant are:

     (i) Gregory A. Eurich and Jimmy Goh of Holland & Hart, LLP,
         555 17th Street, Suite 3200, Denver, CO 80202, Phone:
         303-295-8000, E-mail: geurich@hollandhart.com and
         jgoh@hollandhart.com; and

    (ii) Gregory F. Hurley of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 650 Town
         Center Drive, Suite 1700, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, Phone:
         714-708-6564, Fax: 714 708-6501, E-mail:
         sautters@gtlaw.com.


UNITED STATES: Pa. Residents Sue HUD Over Housing Foreclosure
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development faces a
purported class action filed by residents of the 30-year-old
Third East Hills Park subsidized co-op.

The residents filed the suit on July 26, 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in an
attempt to halt the foreclosure sale of their housing plan for
redevelopment.  Named as plaintiffs in the case are:

      -- Third East Hills Park, Inc.,
      -- Aline Reid,
      -- Dale Peoples,
      -- Jean Massie,
      -- Shirley Sowell,
      -- Yevorn Gaskins,
      -- Yugonda Alice,
      -- Zetta Brandon, and
      -- Louise Brandon

The 49-page complaint pointed out that HUD wants to sell the
property to the Urban Redevelopment Authority for $1, which in
turn wants to sell it for a nominal fee to companies that plan
to turn it into mixed-income housing.

The suit, which was filed under the 1968 Fair Housing Act,
states that HUD basically wants to sell the property to
developers under the "East Hills Visioning" plan.  

Under that plan the homes of Third East Hills would be
demolished and redeveloped.  Those involved in the project have
obtained and committed $60 million in public and private
funding.

Essentially, the plan is similar to what happened to the First
and Second East Hills Parks in 2002 and 2003, which were sold
with the intent to revitalize the whole community with mixed-
income housing and apartments.

The lawsuit pointed out that under the co-op plan at Third East
Hills, residents were able to become shareholders by paying a
fee up front, and then contributing 30 percent of adjusted
household income each month toward rent and utilities.  

It thus contends that under the current deed for the property,
it must be used as "affordable housing" and for that to change,
the deed must be nullified.  

In order to achieve that nullification, HUD is foreclosing,
based on a failure in four consecutive physical inspections.

However, plaintiffs claim that they never missed a mortgage
payment and should not be foreclosed upon.

Since November 2004, according to the lawsuit, HUD has displaced
65 shareholders and 22 non-shareholder families.  It also
alleges that HUD did not provide appropriate relocation
assistance to the residents who have been forced to move.

Plaintiffs are seeking class certification for the case to
include all others "similarly situated."  They are also seeking
to have the HUD permanently enjoined from foreclosing on the
property; stopped from displacing any other residents; and
forced to help manage the property.

Most of the plaintiffs, several of them elderly, have lived in
the development for many years, including two who have been
there since the co-op's inception.

Last week residents won a temporary restraining order to stop
the sale of the property.  Chief U.S. District Judge Donetta W.
Ambrose granted that order.  The judge slated a hearing on the
matter for Aug. 4.

The suit is "Massie, et al. v. U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-01004-DWA," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
under Judge Donetta W. Ambrose

Representing the plaintiffs is Kevin Quisenberry of Community
Justice Project, 429 Forbes Avenue, 1705 Allegheny Building,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: (412) 434-6004, E-mail:
kquisenberry@earthlink.net.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

September 18-19, 2006
NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel (Arlington St.), Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 20, 2006
ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel (Arlington St.), Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 20, 2006
INSURANCE CONTRACT WORDING CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 21-22, 2006
BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 21-22, 2006
EMINENT DOMAIN CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton, Marina del Rey, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 26-27, 2006
REINSURANCE ARBITRATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

September 27-28, 2006
CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS & LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

September 27-28, 2006
CLINICAL TRIALS
American Conference Institute
Boston
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

September 28-29, 2006
INSURANCE & REINSURANCE CORPORATE COUNSEL CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 12-13, 2006
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678

October 4-5, 2006
CHEMICAL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Chicago
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

October 5-7, 2006
LEXISNEXIS PRACTICE MANAGEMENT CIC CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Ballantyne Resort, Charlotte, NC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 11, 2006
CORPORATE E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 16-17, 2006
WATER CONTAMINATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 19-20, 2006
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
Mealeys Seminars
Caesar's Palace, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 25-26, 2006
WAGE & HOUR CLAIMS & CLASS ACTIONS
American Conference Institute
San Francisco
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

October 25-26, 2006
DERIVATIVES BOOT CAMP
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

October 26-27, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS & PREEMPTION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Hyatt Regency, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 31-November 1, 2006
EXIT STRATEGIES FOR THE INSURANCE MARKETPLACE CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Jurys Great Russell Street Hotel, London, UK
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 1-2, 2006
INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Jurys Great Russell Street Hotel, London, UK
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 2-3, 2006
LONG TERM CARE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

November 9-10, 2006
BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

November 16-17, 2006
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 30-December 1, 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

December 4-5, 2006
BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 13-15, 2006
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

March 2007
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Loews Hotel, Miami, Florida
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678

May 3-4, 2007
Accountants' Liability CM076
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

August 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

August 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com   

August 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

August 1-30, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

August 1-30, 2006
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

August 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com  

August 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com   

August 9, 2006
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 9, 2006
HEARING LOSS CLAIMS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 10, 2006
CONCRETE LITIGATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 10, 2006
SULFATES LITIGATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 10, 2006
INTERNATIONAL TRADE & ARBITRATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 15, 2006
VAPOR INTRUSION - ADDRESSING CONTAMINATION THAT WON'T GO AWAY
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 16, 2006
INVESTIGATIONS INTO FRAUDULENT ASBESTOS & SILICA CLAIMS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 17, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS AND DEVICES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 13, 2006
PROPOSITION 64/17200
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 15, 2006
HOW TO GET ON AN MDL COMMITTEE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 17, 2006
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TELECONFERENCE SERIES: WOMEN IN THE LAW
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 24, 2006
NANOTECHNOLOGY
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 26, 2006
CURRENT CLAIMS ISSUES FOR UNDERWRITERS AND SENIOR CLAIMS PEOPLE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com   

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com   

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com  

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com   

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org  


_______________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


FOXHOLLOW TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz & Nobel Announces Filing of Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., announces that a lawsuit
seeking class-action status was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
FoxHollow Technologies, Inc. between May 13, 2005 and Jan. 26,
2006.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements.

Specifically, defendants misrepresented or concealed adverse
facts, including that FoxHollow's chairman had directed
management to acquire another private company, called Lumend,
for his own benefit and ultimately caused the company to
terminate certain senior management based on their refusal to go
along with the acquisition.

When FoxHollow announced that members of its senior management,
including the chief executive, chief operating officer and vice
president of sales were being replaced, in December 2005 and
January 2006, the price of FoxHollow's stock dropped nearly 50%.

Interested parties may no later than Sept. 26, 2006, request
that the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton and Nancy A. Kulesa
of Schatz & Nobel, Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.  


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Faruqi & Faruqi Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, announces that a class action was
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers of Herley Industries,
Inc. (HRLY) securities between Oct. 1, 2001 and June 14, 2006.  

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal
securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of
materially false and misleading press releases concerning
Herley's financial results and business prospects.

The complaint further alleges that Herley failed to disclose,
among other things, that:

      -- the company's financial results were achieved through
         illegal conduct, specifically the misrepresentation of
         manufacturing costs on contracts with the U.S.
         Government and the falsification of a bid in order to
         win the award of a contract;

      -- the company lacked adequate internal controls; and

      -- as a result, the Company would likely be subject to
         enhanced governmental scrutiny and/or fined for
         improper conduct, thus hampering the company's ability
         to receive new contract awards from the U.S.
         Government.

On June 6, 2006, Herley's stunned investors when it revealed
that the U.S. Attorney's Office indicted the company and its
chairman, defendant Lee N. Blatt on multiple charges in
connection with excessive profits improperly earned by the
company on three contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense.  
In response to these disclosures, Herley's stock price dropped
to a 52 week low of $9.21 per share on June 14, 2006.

Interested parties may no later than Aug. 14, 2006, move the
court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.

For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. of Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th Street New York, NY 10016, Phone:
877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330, E-mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com,
Web site: http://www.faruqilaw.com.


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Federman & Sherwood Announces Filing of Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on July 17, 2006, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey against Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.  

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from April 29, 2004 through July 5, 2006.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 15,
2006, to serve as lead plaintiff for the class.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.


RAMBUS INC: Klafter & Olsen Files Securities Suit in N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Klafter & Olsen, LLP filed a class action complaint against
Rambus, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (Civil Action No.: 06-4629) on behalf of
investors who purchased the publicly traded securities of Rambus
from Jan. 16, 2004 through and including July 18, 2006.

The complaint alleges that Rambus and certain of its officers
and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading financial statements due to defendants' undisclosed
practice of improperly backdating stock options to benefit
various Rambus executives and directors.

Defendants' manipulation of the dates for granting of stock
options not only improperly benefited Rambus' executives and/or
directors, it also resulted in the overstatement of Rambus'
reported earnings between 2003 and the first quarter of 2006.

As a result, on July 19, 2006, Rambus announced that it would be
forced to restate its previously issued financial statements for
fiscal years 2003 through the first quarter of fiscal year 2006.

Interested parties may no later than Sept. 18, 2006, move for
appointment as a lead plaintiff.  

For more details, contact Klafter & Olsen, LLP, Phone: 202/261-
3553, Web site: http://www.klafterolsen.com.  


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2006.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *